[BBC News] Man is charged after drugs raid

[WTF]

LDV - This is interesting, but could you clarify. Is it you think the laws dealing with drugs and ecstasy in particular are 'stupid laws', or 'oppressive laws'? Is it that you think that someone breaking a law you happen to think is not a good one shouldn't be prosecuted, or that you think the law on this is so oppressive and unjust that it is wrong to prosecute at all?

 

If you just think the laws are stupid, I'm with gazza - some laws are stupid but that's no reason to break them.

 

It is not a reason to break them, but if the laws made no good sense then I see no reason to change one's behaviour because of that law. I am not arguing for example that if I thought laws on murder were stupid I will go out and kill people. Simply that senseless laws need not be respected. Not talking about motivation at all.

 

My guess though is that you might mean the latter. If so, it's an interesting view, particularly if there no earthly reason why ecstasy should be illegal, and - as you seem to argue - making it illegal is unreasonable and has no justification. A bit like a law which make turnips illegal, and possession of turnips with intent to supply an even more serious offence. Is that how you see this?

 

Yes based on my political views which see it as wrong that people cannot do what they wish with their bodies and from the convention perspective that such laws are such utter hypocrisy when we live in a culture that abuses alcohol constantly.

 

if your child ( i hope you haven't spawned really, it's a hypothetical question) was found to have died because on an ecstacy related incident, would you still be advocating how safe it is and how stupid the law is??

[Skeddan]

So to come full circle, if a person wants to take ecstasy or cocaine or heroin and in doing so they hurt no one else and commit no crime against any other person or their property, who the fuck are we to tell them how to live their lives?

House - first off I think gazza's point was that if you don't like the law, that's no reason to break it or think you shouldn't be punished if you do.

 

But I take your point - that if a law interferes with someone's freedom for no good reason (like making turnips illegal - perhaps because someone thinks it 'immoral' to have phallic shaped root vegetables or some silly dogma), then that's another thing. One useful 'test' is if the law is a "gratuitous interference with the rights of those subject to them as could find no justification in the minds of reasonable men"

 

If someone wants to take heroin - well what do you do when they OD? Fuck off and die- you can't use the NHS? Why make people wear seat belts? Why not let them sell a kidney?

 

But if there's no good medical reason against a person taking a substance, and it is perfectly safe to do that, then yes - who the fuck are we to tell them they can't? It's just being like a Turnip Nazi - that wicked plastic man (doctorin' doctorin')

 

Say kids

what time is it?

It's time for House.

[thebees]

Ecstasy was given to pregnant mice the rate of birth defects was unchanged, compared to Phenylephrine Hydrochloride (one of the active ingredients in most cold and food remedies) which caused a higher rate of skeletal defects, I dont quite remember the exact number but it was like 80/3000 - one you can buy in the corner shop the other is a class A drug. While the majority are still a bit scared of drugs and fail to see the similarity between party drugs, chemist remedies and the crap they get off the doctor - it would be fairer to make alcohol and nicotine and everything else like that illegal too but to relax the law enforcement. People need to be responsible for themselves.

 

This talk of drink spiking - oh please, I have been leaving my drinks unattended for years in the hope that some kindly soul will pop an E in there for me, but, to no avail - it never happens, the kids that go home telling their parents they were spiked....ahem....they took it all by themselves.

[Cret]

compared to Phenylephrine Hydrochloride (one of the active ingredients in most cold and food remedies)

 

Isn't it Phenylephedrine Hydrochloride?

[gazza]

This talk of drink spiking - oh please, I have been leaving my drinks unattended for years in the hope that some kindly soul will pop an E in there for me, but, to no avail - it never happens, the kids that go home telling their parents they were spiked....ahem....they took it all by themselves.

 

so have i but never been spiked,

 

but have seen it first hand twice on 2 girls, yes its over a 10 year spell, but still it does happin,

[thebees]

Oh maybe Cret, I couldnt remember its name so looked it up on a medical site, but the outcome was the same. I cannot find the site I found those bits of info on, some American College, there are loads of different reports - all saying different things. It's all very much unknown, there are gazillions of factors to health and all reports can do is surmise, noone really knows.

 

 

Ooops - DO NOT GIVE YOUR PREGNANT MICE E'S - it wasnt ecstasy, it was psilocin. Im old, I get confused

[Skeddan]

DO NOT GIVE YOUR PREGNANT MICE E'S

 

Go on, Go on, Go on....

[sarahc]

Ecstasy was given to pregnant mice the rate of birth defects was unchanged, compared to Phenylephrine Hydrochloride (one of the active ingredients in most cold and food remedies) which caused a higher rate of skeletal defects, I dont quite remember the exact number but it was like 80/3000 - one you can buy in the corner shop the other is a class A drug. While the majority are still a bit scared of drugs and fail to see the similarity between party drugs, chemist remedies and the crap they get off the doctor - it would be fairer to make alcohol and nicotine and everything else like that illegal too but to relax the law enforcement. People need to be responsible for themselves.

 

This talk of drink spiking - oh please, I have been leaving my drinks unattended for years in the hope that some kindly soul will pop an E in there for me, but, to no avail - it never happens, the kids that go home telling their parents they were spiked....ahem....they took it all by themselves.

 

I got spiked at the Academy once - no idea what it was but you don't get in that state by drinking cans of coke!

[Cret]

I doubt anyone would have noticed in the Academy. RIP.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

So we only have to obey laws and regulations that we agree with? How long would society last before it descended into anarchy?

 

I'm sure every law on the statute book would be broken by someone who didn't agree with it.

 

Anarchy? Do you mean chaos? I think the attitude of any person who believes that no matter what law is in force it should be obeyed. Are our laws sent to us by some benevolent being? No. Laws are set down by a few men and there absolutely no reason why any law SHOULD be good for society. There isn't even a guarantee that laws are made by people who know better. But even if most people thought that the lawmakers knew better and had a mandate to state what laws are needed, what say do I have on the matter? None. I understand the point you are making about how laws should be universally respected, but why is there a requirement to follow them when the vast majority have had no say on them and when they are a product of a few people's opinions on what is and what is not permissibly in society.

 

No doubt every law on the statute book will be broken, as it is broken today. But if laws disappeared I do not think that ones that relate to say murder, robbery, violence would necessarily increase. I can't get my head around the idea that people think twice on their actions because of the law. They think twice because they know it to be wrong based on their morals, though having laws does ensure that the person who is caught is punished.

 

So it's OK if I go around groping women or stealing from shops because the urge takes me? It's alright for me to steal cars and joyride or commit arson because I don't agree with the law?

 

I don't know you but I have some confidence in thinking that you would not begin groping women, stealing cars, joyriding, and commiting arson if there were no related laws. Why would you? I take exception to stealing from shops however because I don't personally think that many instances of shop lifting are wrong, for good reasons. But if you wanted to knick some frozen chickens from a supermarket or a jumper from a clothes store, I would probably wish you luck.

 

What a stupid attitude. Laws are put in place to protect people and raise us from the level of savages. If we didn't have laws then society would end and we would all end up murdering, raping and pillaging to survive.

 

Raise us from the level of savages? I am sure you can appreciate that the absence of positive law in many societies, tribes, and groups in the world does not reduce the people to savages.

 

Take a look at news bulletins to see what happens to societies when they decide not heed laws and live as decent citizens.

 

Take a look at the Horn of Africa and its environs. There are areas with no government and no legal system and they are doing quite fine.

 

I don't see your point about the news bulletins though. I am not a believe that people live descently because of the laws. Though laws reinforce decent behaviour.

 

but the point is there are ppl out there that have no morals or consience, arent bothered if thay get caught,

and would happly take everything you have,

 

But then that appears to me to be a reflection of the sorry state of our society than an argument for positive law.

 

IMO it would be wrong for the law to allow someone to sell themselves into slavery (even if this money provided for their family), so I don't go with the unrestricted freedom as you might have it. I agree it might be hypocritical with alcohol, but maybe then all this means is that alcohol laws need to be changed.

 

What do you mean by selling themselves in to slavery? Do you mean an addiction? Why do you think it is right for the state to dictate on drug use?

 

Is 'doing whatever they wish with their bodies' going to let people put nasty possibly poisonous chemicals in food and drink and let them sell these, or to make these without proper safety control? Why not if the buyer takes it knowing it might not be safe - and they should be able to do whatever they want? Nah - I don't agree there. Be nice if everyone was contentious and moral - trouble is they're not - there'll always be a few greedy unscrupulous bastards.

 

Well yes, the problem in our society and due to the nature of the system we live in there are unscrupulous and immoral people and businesses who will do anything for a profit. And if there was no regulation (which involves the need for laws) the general public would be at serious risk. But I would wish for the removal of the system in which we live and the profit making that too easily overrides morality.

 

If you argued that ecstasy should be legalised, and that proper quality controlled manufacture and supply ought to be allowed if the person's GP had no reasonable objection on medical grounds to this, then OK.

 

I would think that would be a sensible improvement on the current situation. Although I would still think that it would be wrong to punish those who have not seen a GP or who have not obtained the drug from registered suppliers.

 

Come to think of it, maybe there'd be a good reason to change the law in IoM to this - it would improve the club scene

 

Have you been to the Isle of Man? There are no clubs to speak of. But it would definitely be a better place having everyone mashed on E rather than on wasted on drink.

 

if your child ( i hope you haven't spawned really, it's a hypothetical question) was found to have died because on an ecstacy related incident, would you still be advocating how safe it is and how stupid the law is??

 

I have no intention of doing so. It is a hypothetical question, fair enough, but if my child did die then I would not be saying 'how safe it is'. But I am not saying it is safe. I am saying it is safer in terms of the number of deaths and illnesses compared alcohol. And that it has killed my child would not alter my beliefs on the law. People are not screaming out for a ban on alcohol or on a ban on cars because of car crashes.

[sausage]

Tarring a few drugs such as coke and ecstacy illegal whilst branding others legal does regrettably make things more dangerous, not safer. It is also leads to unfair jail terms in some cases.

 

You always get the same tired old scare stories as some kind of justification from the self righteous crew on this debate 'what if the nasty dealers spike your childs kia-ora' 'what if your child inhales some pot one day and is hooked on heroin the next' and of course 'its against the law to take drugs so any sentence handed down is correct because they broke the law'.

 

Fine continue to live in this fabricated black and white existence. However back in the real world making some drugs illegal makes no real difference to the demand, makes it more dangerous for young people as there is no quality control

 

Furthermore when I read that two paedos have just received sentences of 7 years and 12 years for filming themselves raping a 12 year old whilst longer sentences are handed down in IOM for coke dealing I want to be in the camp that challenges the law and says hold on this isnt right rather than being one of the sheep who accepts everything 'coz its the law' !!!

[Skeddan]

No. Laws are set down by a few men and there absolutely no reason why any law SHOULD be good for society. There isn't even a guarantee that laws are made by people who know better. But even if most people thought that the lawmakers knew better and had a mandate to state what laws are needed, what say do I have on the matter? None. I understand the point you are making about how laws should be universally respected, but why is there a requirement to follow them when the vast majority have had no say on them and when they are a product of a few people's opinions on what is and what is not permissibly in society.

 

What you are talking about here is authoritarian rule, and I fully respect what you say about this. I'd also agree that many so-called democracies are really authoritarian in this way, some perhaps only mildly authoritarian, but still so, and often increasingly so.

 

You've stated your political beliefs are anarchist. Perhaps mine are too. As I understand it an anarchist society is non-coercive and non-authoritarian. It may have laws, but not ones that are unreasonably imposed and forced on people in a dictatorship of those who win the most votes, or by any other economic or political elite. Instead this kind of 'anarchist society' is more like a true democracy; one where people live by laws made with their consent.

 

The principle that you are starting to touch on here - that the laws should be made with the consent and agreement of the people subject to them is one that IMO perhaps matters most. Authoritarian regimes last very little time and crash ruinously - which might be a cause for optimism, but usually they end up being replaced by a new guard in boom bust cycles. I'm more interested in the alternatives which have longevity, and though perhaps only modestly prosperous, survive sustainably, happily and peacefully for all. (If not that, the alternative is selfish and unjust exploitation of others, discord, discontent and the road to ruin for that society). Perhaps part of the difficulty is that there are few models, instead we seem to have at best the ideal of western 'democracies' - UK, USA and the American Dream, Freedom (to exploit and grow rich) and so on.

 

Knocking the current system is easy - what is hard is finding something that is workable, realistic and achievable and which people might agree to adopt rather than something to be imposed on them. There's no point chasing an impossible dream. I'm sure you don't think what you have in mind would be impossible, but I'm really not clear on how this might be as you see it (other than perhaps becoming a primitive society). One way to approach it might be to think of everyone in a society as 'fatmates' who have to figure out how they are going to get on with each other. Not as inmates or pupils in a boarding school subject to a headmaster. How would you see this as a starting point:

 

Once upon a time long long ago, there was a little island, with a little government elected by people of the island, but the people were also part of the government. Once or twice a year, the people would gather in an open space by a big mound to hear any new laws that were being proposed, and took part in making these laws themselves, as symbolised by them bringing with them to these meetings earth from their homes to add to this law-hill of the peoples' own making. Each and every person had a right to attend and participate, and to speak up about a proposed law if there was something that effected them which was unjust or unreasonable. People took that responsibility seriously and didn't abuse it or use it lightly - that might spoil the system where any such issues with the laws and doleances had to be properly answered and satisfactorily resolved before the law could come into effect. Those who broke the laws were punished according to the law they had freely agreed and consented to be applied to themselves. That way the laws were universally respected, and people lived together happily and harmoniously with justice and love in that little gem of God's earth.

 

It may be a fairy story, but it's as old as the hills, and a dream that still has it's place (even if a bit flowery ). Could you live with something along those lines? If not, what?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

What you are talking about here is authoritarian rule, and I fully respect what you say about this. I'd also agree that many so-called democracies are really authoritarian in this way, some perhaps only mildly authoritarian, but still so, and often increasingly so.

 

You've stated your political beliefs are anarchist. Perhaps mine are too. As I understand it an anarchist society is non-coercive and non-authoritarian. It may have laws, but not ones that are unreasonably imposed and forced on people in a dictatorship of those who win the most votes, or by any other economic or political elite. Instead this kind of 'anarchist society' is more like a true democracy; one where people live by laws made with their consent.

 

The principle that you are starting to touch on here - that the laws should be made with the consent and agreement of the people subject to them is one that IMO perhaps matters most. Authoritarian regimes last very little time and crash ruinously - which might be a cause for optimism, but usually they end up being replaced by a new guard in boom bust cycles. I'm more interested in the alternatives which have longevity, and though perhaps only modestly prosperous, survive sustainably, happily and peacefully for all. (If not that, the alternative is selfish and unjust exploitation of others, discord, discontent and the road to ruin for that society). Perhaps part of the difficulty is that there are few models, instead we seem to have at best the ideal of western 'democracies' - UK, USA and the American Dream, Freedom (to exploit and grow rich) and so on.

 

Knocking the current system is easy - what is hard is finding something that is workable, realistic and achievable and which people might agree to adopt rather than something to be imposed on them. There's no point chasing an impossible dream. I'm sure you don't think what you have in mind would be impossible, but I'm really not clear on how this might be as you see it (other than perhaps becoming a primitive society). One way to approach it might be to think of everyone in a society as 'fatmates' who have to figure out how they are going to get on with each other. Not as inmates or pupils in a boarding school subject to a headmaster. How would you see this as a starting point:

 

Once upon a time long long ago, there was a little island, with a little government elected by people of the island, but the people were also part of the government. Once or twice a year, the people would gather in an open space by a big mound to hear any new laws that were being proposed, and took part in making these laws themselves, as symbolised by them bringing with them to these meetings earth from their homes to add to this law-hill of the peoples' own making. Each and every person had a right to attend and participate, and to speak up about a proposed law if there was something that effected them which was unjust or unreasonable. People took that responsibility seriously and didn't abuse it or use it lightly - that might spoil the system where any such issues with the laws and doleances had to be properly answered and satisfactorily resolved before the law could come into effect. Those who broke the laws were punished according to the law they had freely agreed and consented to be applied to themselves. That way the laws were universally respected, and people lived together happily and harmoniously with justice and love in that little gem of God's earth.

 

It may be a fairy story, but it's as old as the hills, and a dream that still has it's place (even if a bit flowery ). Could you live with something along those lines? If not, what?

 

Yes, you understand what I mean. I can't say I really have much respect for a system where a government with a majority of votes is given carte blance to do as it pretty much pleases whilst it is in power. The people in power have completely different attitudes and beliefs than the rest of the population so the laws that the government demands are going to reflect the wishes of this very small minority. And these laws might correlate with the atttudes of the general populace, but often they do not, and often the general public are force fed propaganda and misinformation in an attempt to gain acceptance.

 

I don't know if there is any need to refer to it ONLY as authoritarian because the system that we live in is bafflingly called a democracy, a liberal democracy. It is an appalling system and one I would like to see the end of, however unlikely that may be in the near future.

 

And you are quite right about anarchist society. It is very democratic. Decision would have to be made on a majoritarian basis, but participation to cast your vote and voice your opinions is always there, which it is not in our society. What real choice or power do the people of the Isle of Man really have. Only a tiny few have any say in the laws that govern them and how they are governed. The people are simply spectators. It is why I do not vote and often tell others not to either.

 

It is a sad when the best ideal we have is the U.S.A. and the Western European countries. Communism was an utter failure and the socialist states that existed curbed the freedoms of the people so much that it matters little whether there was equality and a form of communism system. The liberal democracies are the currently the best systems in terms of allowing their citizens freedoms, and it would be the U.S.A. that is by far and away the best at allowing freedoms but it is by no means an attractive system. The UK is certainly not a goood contender. But these liberal democracies are terrible systems. The vast majority of people have absolutely no say whatsoever in the role of the state and are effectively RULED by an elite, the people are the governments subjects. People are duped into thinking that their government works for them, that laws work for them, that the police and armed forces work for them.

 

Yes, knocking the current system is easy, VERY easy. Once you start to actually realise what is wrong in our society today, such as why do politicians have such close ties to business, why your input into government ends with the vote, why politicians and parties all seem the same, why ridiculous laws are passed, why the state thinks it should be allowed to intervere with the behaviour and dictate with the lives of people, why it protects property, etc., you start to realise that we could do a lot better.

Viability of another system is the problem though. But for whatever trouble it may cause I would risk having a try. But anarchism is not something that can be imposed by a minority, it has to come from workers. It will HAVE to be imposed on the middle classes (in the Marxist sense) and the elite, but these people are the ones who will resist change, because they benefit so much from the current system, i.e. they have the power.

The only way for a revolution is to make people understand their situation if they were unaware of it, to see that the state and capitalism are things that need to go. But too many think that anarchism is all about bombs and punks.

 

I don't see the only answer as being a primitive society. As human beings, as animals, we have highly developed social skills and have a high degree of intelligence. Our main motivations in society are to support one another and not to compete. And the forces in society which have so much of a direction on our lifestyles, such as the capitalist mode of work and state control are all artificial structures that clearly (or as I may see it) have a negating effect on our social relations and abilities to cooperate. I see an anarchist society as being far from primitive.

 

But anarchism may be a utopian idea, or rather an ideal that we can only struggly to achieve. If this is the case, then even if an anarchist society cannot be achieved it is worth continually fighting for its principles because unjustified authority and oppression are the evils in our society. But considering that anarchist societies have existed there is some hope.

 

I don't a great deal about Tynwald, it sounds as if the level of participation was far better than what people have today. It isn't anarchism but at least the people were listened to and their contributions were meaningful. Obviously you still have viking chiefs or Kings who have the last say though, but I do not know the extent of their powers.

[gazza]

Take a look at news bulletins to see what happens to societies when they decide not heed laws and live as decent citizens

 

Take a look at the Horn of Africa and its environs. There are areas with no government and no legal system and they are doing quite fine.

.

 

no thay prob have there own way of law, you get caught u prob get shot,

there is allways laws everywhere, maybe there not set by a local goverment or wriiten in stone, but who ever controls that area there will be some sort of code, be it gangs/goverment

 

 

if your child ( i hope you haven't spawned really, it's a hypothetical question) was found to have died because on an ecstacy related incident, would you still be advocating how safe it is and how stupid the law is??

 

I have no intention of doing so. It is a hypothetical question, fair enough, but if my child did die then I would not be saying 'how safe it is'. But I am not saying it is safe. I am saying it is safer in terms of the number of deaths and illnesses compared alcohol. And that it has killed my child would not alter my beliefs on the law. People are not screaming out for a ban on alcohol or on a ban on cars because of car crashes.

 

well thay may not be directly trying to ban cars, but there doing a bloody gd job al the same by limiting what we can do

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Take a look at news bulletins to see what happens to societies when they decide not heed laws and live as decent citizens

 

Take a look at the Horn of Africa and its environs. There are areas with no government and no legal system and they are doing quite fine.

.

 

no thay prob have there own way of law, you get caught u prob get shot,

there is allways laws everywhere, maybe there not set by a local goverment or wriiten in stone, but who ever controls that area there will be some sort of code, be it gangs/goverment

 

Yes, I think you are right. There will always be some form of law in a society or group, or as you say a code of living. What I disagree with is the law in our society where the government decides on something and we are expected to follow it whether that law makes sense or not.